header photo

Social Positivists

"being an irrefutable proof of God"

Blog Search

Blog Archive


There are currently no blog comments.

The Aggrieved Property Owner



Are you an aggrieved property owner? Are you angry because you feel your rights are being abused? Have you worked all your life to get things you need and then saw what you had worked for being systematically removed from you?

Like many others you did not ask for or expect a free ride. You did your part and you assumed you would not be treated worse than those who gave as little as possible and took what they could.

You help the needy, the sick, the old and the disabled. You accepted you would need to carry the burdens of the less fortunate but the need never declined. Year after year the need grows yet we are hardly better off than those who never lifted a finger to help anyone, let alone us.

We cannot go shopping without beggars inside and outside of every store. Foodbanks need our help as do hospitals, churches, the victims of natural disasters and every kind of charity one can think of. Our leaders send billions into the coffers of other nations while the national accounts bleed red. 

But do we have any right to complain? Are we heirs to white privilege and European cultural arrogance? Is the world’s boarders natural and empirically valid?

What right has anyone to claim they are patriots? Are we not all equal persons with an equal say to the earth?

Liberals suggest people have no right to a nation state and that all claims to lands and culture are simply do to racism, xenophobia and cultural snobbery.

The empirical response to this would be to ask for empirical evidence. It might be suggested we look for actual lines where boarders are meant to be or a sign that tells us this bit of land belongs to a specific group be virtue of natural law. Not seeing these things liberals say the conservative position is subjective and even vile.

To devise an experiment to arbitrate between these two extremes we have to find out where the line dividing the two points exists. No one argues that a boarder is a natural division even when natural barriers are used as a national boarder.

The fact that a boarder may simply be concrete pillars put into the ground every several hundred feet does not make it less of a boarder than a mountain range or a barricade defended by armed soldiers.

It is nonsensical to say boarders do not exist because they are not natural because it is not because of nature why they are said to exist.

If we reject the validity of a boarder around a nation then do we similarly eliminate those around a city, a province or state or parish? Do we eliminate lines on a road, property boundaries, and even the line between right and wrong because none of these things have their origin in the material world, all are human creations? Yes, we can prove boarders are not natural phenomenon but what has this to do with the issue?

We can prove that alligator skin leaves do not exist, but the finding does not give us any new information or a stronger foundation on which to make other predictions.

Good and evil are not separate qualities because there is a line between them, two nations are not divided one from the other because someone notice a line was drawn by nature. God and the devil are not distinct beings because there is a line that cuts what would otherwise be a single creature in two.

Canada and the USA regardless of their similarities are different, that is why we are not the same and it is the fact that we are different that creates a boarder. It is not the boarder that produces the US and Canada it is Canada and the US that creates the boarder.

If we mix oil and water, we see a viscous barrier. This boarder does not divide two different viscosities, it is the viscosities that produces the illusion of a line. Thus, we see the argument that nature does not produce boarders is a non-issue. There is no boarder to remove in the sense that liberals want a boarder eliminated. If they cannot see a line, then they cannot go to a nations outer limits and pick up the boarder and take it away. What needs to be done is to remove the differences that produced the boarder in the first place.

Empiricism does not just produce experiments it demonstrates when an experiment is inappropriate. The boarder between the US and Mexico, for example, could be eliminate in a legal and political sense but the cultural and historic factors that led to the boarder will remain. The argument that boarders need to come down is based on a failure to understand what a boarder is and its purpose. Oil and water will not mix and other things are divided because they do not mix well and if missed lose their identity. If liberals wish to eliminate the boarder what they need to do is demonstrate that the national identity is empirically invalid.

So, far as the claim that boarders do not exist, that claim is validated and judged empirically without content. That which does not exist cannot be proved to exist and since no one has claimed boarders are a natural phenomenon the positive finding has no empirical consequence. No predictions are generated by the conclusion.



Go Back